Greatest Grass Court Player of All Time.

He also came close to beating Fed in 2007 as well while being injured.. Nadal could very well be 2-1 vs. Fed on grass right now (Probably even better then that if Fed had to deal with Nadal in 2009 and 2010 as well)

Click to expand...

Come now - being behind 1-2 isn't 'Destroying' Federer as you say. (And that one win is by the slimest of margins).

This is rich beyond words. It is one thing to say Federer is underrated on the Former Pro Section, which while I totally disagree, I can atleast believe one having that opinion. However underrated on the General Player Forum where everyday there are 20 threads entitled "Federer is GOAT" "Why Federer is GOAT" "Federer is the bestest and greatest grass, hard, clay, and nails player ever", and where Federer wins every single poll that there ever is. Hahahahahahahahahahahahah funniest statement ever.

Click to expand...

The existence of something going against what he is accusing you of (underrating Federer) need not be disregarded or mean the argument is seen as a joke or put aside. It merely shows that others do not underrate Federer or perhaps underrate others. But..

As you do not have the self-awareness to understand it yourself, by offering such a poor response you are actually showing that you are indeed misunderstanding what he is saying.

There are several arguments for Federer being the greatest professional grass court player. Several arguments, by professionals themselves (the ones you regard to be better than Federer on a grass court), testify to Federer being head and shoulders above them.

Listen and learn!

One aspect of understanding how truly stunning Federer is to tennis and to sport is that there are so few athletes like Federer in any sport, let alone tennis, for the whole duration of the sport, that for someone like him to pop up, naturally all of the sport is compared and tossed together. Some do not understand him by overrating his skills, some expect superhuman performances from him, you do not understand what puts him above others. And let's face it, he is above everyone else in the sport in just about everything meaningful. Stop underrating him!

He also came close to beating Fed in 2007 as well while being injured.. Nadal could very well be 2-1 vs. Fed on grass right now (Probably even better then that if Fed had to deal with Nadal in 2009 and 2010 as well)

Click to expand...

Federer had 4-0 at some point against Nadal in their meetings in Monte Carlo 2008 final and Hamburg 2008 final . He had 17 break points against Nadal in the French Open 2007 final. He was 6-1, 1*-0 ahead in the French Open 2006 final. By your very same argument (and I will use your exact words), Federer came close to beating Nadal in 2008 whilst being injured (mono)... Federer could very well be X-X vs Nadal on clay. (Probably even better if Federer had recorded those victories and gained more confidence)

See how poor of an argument it is?

Federer is head and shoulders above Nadal on grass. That is, if you call modern day Wimbledon "grass" grass. Even then, Nadal has lost to players of the calibre of Lopez, Kohlschreiber, etc, on grass. Federer has lost to Nadal, Tsonga, Berdych, Hewitt in his last grass meetings, players who have all reached or won a Major final, and have all reached the SF of Wimbledon (barring Tsonga, all have reached the final).

The point? Players who have beaten Federer on grass have delivered exceptional performances and were expected to do well. Nadal has lost to those on grass who are not expected to do as well, Lopez, Rosol, Kohlschreiber, just to name a few.

most Australian Opens
most U.S Opens
most French Opens (not even top 20 in that probably as probably atleast that many have more than 1 French Open)
most years as the #1 player (people say Sampras has the most, but in reality the most would be Gonzales or Laver, there was just no computer rankings then, either way it isnt Federer)
best year W-L record
longest winning streak
A single Calendar or Non Calendar Grand Slam
most tournament wins
most tournament wins in a year
No Davis Cup title

Quite a large number actually. Then even ones he holds he often shares (eg- most Wimbledons, most Masters), and others he basically only holds due to the format of the game as we know it only starting up 40 years ago (eg- most slams, Gonzales and Rosewall would both have many more had it been Open tennis then like today). As I said he is far from the Michael Phelps of tennis. Now if it were Phelps you were talking about you probably couldnt think of a single one.

Click to expand...

It is remarkable how awful your arguments are. Granted, everyone has an opinion, but given that you have spent so much time on these forums, one would expect for you to have learned.

Let's begin to reconstruct this awful argument into something.

First, pure numbers (ie how many Slams one has won) do not determine "greatness" or GOATness.

What defines Nadal so well as a clay-courter for example, is certainly (and it will never be) not how many Roland Garros titles he has won. Often he looks short of confidence on clay, faces players who are more tactically astute and can do more on clay than he can, I recall him facing torture on the first 30 minutes of the French Open 2011 final.

What defines him as being the GOAT on clay is how he plays on the surface, how he uses his body, his style of play, how he breaks his opponent down.

That "torture" turned to Nadal being more aggressive and him digging deep and winning a tough match before breaking Federer's concentration and slipping an easy fourth set.

That is how his GOATness is defined on clay - how he breaks players who enter with super tactics.

So already the first 7/8 lines of your argument have gone. A good beginning. And given that Federer has the most match wins in AO/UO (or one of them) and such other statistics can be found, it is an awful argument. I hope you read this again and again until you get it through to your brain; what you have said is not an argument for Federer not being the GOAT. It is poor logic and an example of how not having understanding of a specific topic.

"The ones he holds are shared by others" : Yes, by others in different generations. Some of those generations did not have seven rounds for Majors, some had much less (and some I recall, had just one match). With different equipment, different tactics and such huge globalisation and much more competitors now, it is hard to assess statistical equivalence (ie, 5 now is equal to 5 back then). Laver, Borg, etc, have all said how Federer is better than them and the GOAT of all time.

What can we deduce from this?

When you make statements about others having better (or equal records) than Federer, take a look at those exact players themselves, who have achieved those records and have played. Take a look at what they have said. They all say the same; Federer is the best and better than them.

Finally, we clean up by looking what your last part is really saying. And when you look at back it, you will realise how stupid it is. Specifically, I will quote:

"As I said he is far from the Michael Phelps of tennis. Now if it were Phelps you were talking about you probably couldnt think of a single one."

He is not the "Michael Phelps" of tennis, he is the Roger Federer of tennis.

Similarly, Michael Phelps is not the "Roger Federer" of swimming, by the same argument.

The quoted is related to the following statements/questions

* Is Michael Phelps the sole definition of GOATness in a sport?
* Swimming and tennis are similar in how athletes are skilled, therefore we can compare the skills of athletes of totally different sports.
* You cannot object to Federer being the GOAT of tennis - first you must compare him to someone superb in a different sport, and see if Federer objectively, somehow by comparing, passes the tests that Phelps has passed in swimming.

More can be involved and I can make it more silly. Simply put, GOATness is an abstraction, the second our silly minds start putting a concrete example (which is bias, as we do not want a different concrete example) to be associated to this specific abstractness, we then cannot ever see a different example being that abstraction.

In simple talk; because Phelps is the GOAT of swimming in my mind, Federer cannot be the GOAT of tennis, he must first pass what Phelps has done in swimming in a somehow comparable way to tennis.

It is just silly; read and learn. I have never seen such an awful argument.

EDIT: I rarely post, I just had to explain and respond to such an imbecilic post.

He also came close to beating Fed in 2007 as well while being injured.. Nadal could very well be 2-1 vs. Fed on grass right now (Probably even better then that if Fed had to deal with Nadal in 2009 and 2010 as well)

Click to expand...

Well, if you're going to play that game, Federer could be 4-1 or 5-1 against Nadal on grass if he had played him in 2003, 2004, 2005... i.e. some of Federer's peak years on grass.

Federer dominated the grass in this era and Pete dominated on fast grass of the 90s. However, if they were to meet 20 times with 10 each on slow and fast grass, Fed would win most of the 20 meetings. Because of Fed proved that he can play on fast grass plus serve/volley. I believe Fed's chance of beating Sampras on fast grass is a lot greater than Sampras beating Fed on slow grass. There's no serve/volley player that could touch Roger on grass, however there were baseliners that have beaten Sampras or at least gave him fit on grass. Also, the matchup favors Federer, who thrives against serve/volley players. The win/loss record would be like 12-8 in favor of Federer.

Also, the matchup favors Federer, who thrives against serve/volley players. The win/loss record would be like 12-8 in favor of Federer.

Click to expand...

Absurd comments since there is absolutely no proof of that. Federer has never faced a top serve and volley player in his career (no one match against old Sampras is not enough) so there is no evidence whatsoever there is no serve/volley player who can touch Federer. Not prime Federer, but Patrick Rafter is 3-0 vs Federer, and Tim Henman has an almost tied H2H with Federer, and beat Federer in back to back matches in late 2003 and early 2004 when Federer was already starting his prime and Henman was 30.
Those are lightweight serve and volley players without the overall firepower of Sampras or Becker, nor the skill level or athleticsm of Edberg.

Even more comical though is the idea you can conclude somehow Federer thrives against serve/volley players. How can you know this when Federer hasnt even faced serve/volley players (other than the ones mentioned he fared mediocre against). I can see someone saying that for Hewitt who exceled vs serve and volley players from 99-2002, but not Federer. It is a guess at best for Federer.

Purely my opinion, but I reckon Sampras at his best ('99?) would have beaten Federer in 2003, 2009, and 2012. Federer at his best ('05-'07) would have beaten Sampras in 1993 and 2000. I also reckon Federer's best was slightly better than Sampras', but that Pete's average standard during his reign was slightly higher than Roger's.

I couldn't pick between them, not on grass. I'm quite happy to say they're as good as each other and leave it at that.

There are 3 contenders; Federer, Sampras, and Laver. I still think Pete at his best has the highest level of play on grass ever. He was peerless during his reign, and the main reason was because of the serve. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UZztuyjbU8

Why is nobody mentioning Gonzales. The guy was the best grass courter in the World for about 9 years, basically all the years he was best player he was best grass courter (which is mostly all that was played on back then) .

Gonzalez had most of his triumphs on indoor courts, for instance his 8 US pros at Cleveland. I assume that he would have won a ton of US champs on Forest Hills grass. At Australian and British lawn i am not that sure. Segdman and Hoad would have challenged him severely there in the 50s.

LOL you were only able to name 4 relatively fair Federer fans. What a surprise. What about Federer fans (aka ****s) such as abmk, Prisoner of Birth, Bobby Jr, McEnroeisanartist, Smasher08, aphex, FakeDjokovicFanWin, DropShotArtist, Tennis_Hands, Biscuitmcgriddleson, MTF07, krosero, Cup8489, monfed, cc0509, mandy01, tenniselbow01, just for starters.

Gonzalez had most of his triumphs on indoor courts, for instance his 8 US pros at Cleveland. I assume that he would have won a ton of US champs on Forest Hills grass. At Australian and British lawn i am not that sure. Sedgman and Hoad would have challenged him severely there in the 50s.

Click to expand...

You are right that Segdman and Hoad were his greatest threats on Grass. Gonzales did win two Tournament of Champions at Forest Hills on grass though.

LOL you were only able to name 4 relatively fair Federer fans. What a surprise. What about Federer fans (aka ****s) such as abmk, Prisoner of Birth, Bobby Jr, McEnroeisanartist, Smasher08, aphex, FakeDjokovicFanWin, DropShotArtist, Tennis_Hands, Biscuitmcgriddleson, MTF07, krosero, Cup8489, monfed, cc0509, mandy01, tenniselbow01, just for starters.

Your anti Fed list isnt very long either.

Click to expand...

Lol seriously? Most if not all those guys you mentioned seem like fair and good posters to me. And krosero isn't even a Federer fan! (well he might very well be, but he seems pretty neutral in the whole Federer fan/Nadal fan wars).

Here's some stats that I hope are accurate and give some idea what Sampras and Federer are up against.

Click to expand...

So because there were twice as many (or three times as many) grass court tournaments back in the day, that is supposed to count against Federer and Sampras?
With the shortest grass court season in history, Federer has been able to rack up 7 grass court slams, 12 titles in all. Until the early 1970s, the majority of tennis tournaments were played on grass, including three out of the four Grand Slams, so of course the oldies had more grass court titles.

Even Richard Krajicek could take down Sampras at his peak. Federer 2004 > 2006 would beat peak Pete 19 times out of 20.

Click to expand...

'96 wasn't necessarily "peak" Sampras in terms of his overall play. . Take '99 Wimbledon final Sampras for peak. There were some years during Pete's run at wimbledon where he was more "peaking" then others.

I'll go with no GOAT of grass, but greatest grass courts players of their eras. Federer, Sampras, Borg, Laver would certainly be in that list.

I just don't like GOAT claims, and being a Federer fan it would be easy for me to say that Fed is GOAT, with so many numbers to his name. I just don't like comparing eras, things are always changing. I am content with players being the greatest of THEIR time.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you. It's just a bit ridiculous when people say "it's so and so, no contest!" It's too hard to compare players from different eras.

He also came close to beating Fed in 2007 as well while being injured.. Nadal could very well be 2-1 vs. Fed on grass right now (Probably even better then that if Fed had to deal with Nadal in 2009 and 2010 as well)

Click to expand...

Though 9-7 in the 5th is a lot tighter than 6-2 in the 5th, so Fed just as easily could have been 3-0 on grass, and more if Nadal had faced him in 2004, and 2005 as well. Also another injury in 2007? Nice touch.

Have you seen enough of Laver's wins on grass to compare him to Pete? Or are you just putting him in because of numbers, but ignoring the numbers enough to put Pete as number one?

I totally agree with you. It's just a bit ridiculous when people say "it's so and so, no contest!" It's too hard to compare players from different eras.

Though 9-7 in the 5th is a lot tighter than 6-2 in the 5th, so Fed just as easily could have been 3-0 on grass, and more if Nadal had faced him in 2004, and 2005 as well. Also another injury in 2007? Nice touch.

Click to expand...

I've seen quite a few Laver matches on youtube. Impossible to compare wood era to graphite to the poly string eras but to me Sampras' game was tailor made for grass (take nothing away from Laver or Federer of course).

One thing I think Sampras could do that the others couldn't (at least to the same degree) is dominate grass in any era under any circumstance you threw at him. Be it poly strings, graphite or wood

He had the baseline game,power, precision, serve and volley( Fed's was not as good of a volleyer or with the touch sampras had at the net). Fed would be shanking quite a few shots with the wood and he just isn't as comfortable coming into the net (which is a hinderance in the wood era). I see Sampras the modern day Pancho on grass. (who also has a claim for grass court GOAT but I haven't seen much of Pancho to make an opinion on him. But I've heard the stories and seen his numbers which were crazy as well)

Feds the best hard court player Ive seen overall (between slow and fast, though I dont necessarily believe hes the best fast hard court player ever, but the best between both).. I will give him that. But still Pete WAS grass in many ways. His game was perfect for it.. Built for it.

I've seen quite a few Laver matches on youtube. Impossible to compare wood era to graphite to the poly string eras but to me Sampras' game was tailor made for grass (take nothing away from Laver or Federer of course).

One thing I think Sampras could do that the others couldn't (at least to the same degree) is dominate grass in any era under any circumstance you through at him.

He had the baseline game,power, precision, serve and volley( Fed's was not as good of a volleyer or with the touch sampras had at the net). Fed would be shanking quite a few shots with the wood. I see Sampras the modern day Pancho on grass. (who also has a claim for grass court GOAT but I haven't seen much of Pancho to make an opinion on him)

Feds the best hard court player Ive seen overall (between slow and fast, though I dont necessarily believe hes the best fast hard court player ever, but the best between both).. I will give him that. But still Pete WAS grass in many ways. His game was perfect for it.. Built for it.

Click to expand...

Well I respect your opinion and I don't agree or dissagree. I can't decide, as you say string and racquet technology has changed a lot. Plus grass slowing down early in Federer's career - I think he could have been a much better volleyer had the grass stayed fast and he might have stuck with serve and volley. I do think Sampras looked possibly the most natural on grass of any player, but I think Federer being more of an all courter could have maybe adapated to different grass courts a bit better as people say in Laver's day the grass courts played different from one another. There are a lot of variables.

I've heard crazy stories about how good pancho was too, but as you say it's difficult to find enough footage to truly judge.

While Boris Becker said Sampras was better on grass. Becker's opinion >>>>>>>> Bjorkman's. John McEnroe who has called Federer the overall GOAT, still says Sampras at his best would beat Federer at his on any faster court, not just grass (so obviously grass that much moreso).

While Boris Becker said Sampras was better on grass. Becker's opinion >>>>>>>> Bjorkman's. John McEnroe who has called Federer the overall GOAT, still says Sampras at his best would beat Federer at his on any faster court, not just grass (so obviously grass that much moreso).

Click to expand...

Yet Sampras was not able to win a slam on grass past age 29 beating players a generation younger than him the way Federer was able to do at 31 this year so Federer really has surpassed Sampras on grass. There is no question that if both were in their primes their grass h2h would be very close. Hard to pick a winner.

Both have 7 Wimbledons and there are no other grass tournament that matters these days besides Wimbledon, so it is really completely up to personal opinion who is better. Federer hasnt surpassed Sampras on grass unless he wins an 8th. One could say Sampras carried his dominance on grass until he was 29 (he won his 4th Wimbledon in a row and 7th in 8 years 1 month shy of his 29th birthday) while Federer couldnt carry his that far.

Gonzalez had most of his triumphs on indoor courts, for instance his 8 US pros at Cleveland. I assume that he would have won a ton of US champs on Forest Hills grass. At Australian and British lawn i am not that sure. Segdman and Hoad would have challenged him severely there in the 50s.

Click to expand...

As an amateur, Gonzales won the 1948 and 1949 US Championships on grass. As a professional, Gonzales won the 1957 and 1958 Tournament of Champions on grass. All 4 of these tournaments were at Forest Hills, New York. In the 1950s, the most lucrative and profitable parts of the professional circuit were the big head-to-head tours, particularly for the best amateur player who had just turned professional to face the best professional player. Gonzales was dominant on these tours from 1954-1961, and he added big tournaments along with these when he played them.

While Boris Becker said Sampras was better on grass. Becker's opinion >>>>>>>> Bjorkman's. John McEnroe who has called Federer the overall GOAT, still says Sampras at his best would beat Federer at his on any faster court, not just grass (so obviously grass that much moreso).

Click to expand...

The difference was Bjorkman played both Sampras and Federer at Wimbledon. After he lost to Fed in 06, he was ask who was a better grass player and he pick Federer. It's nice to hear Becker's input, but he doesn't know what is like on court with Federer.

Yet Sampras was not able to win a slam on grass past age 29 beating players a generation younger than him the way Federer was able to do at 31 this year so Federer really has surpassed Sampras on grass. There is no question that if both were in their primes their grass h2h would be very close. Hard to pick a winner.

Click to expand...

This is the same argument use for Connors at the US Open. He gets extra credits for longevity and results during his past prime years than Sampras and Federer. So if it applies for Connors, it should applies to Federer at Wimbledon too.

While Boris Becker said Sampras was better on grass. Becker's opinion >>>>>>>> Bjorkman's. John McEnroe who has called Federer the overall GOAT, still says Sampras at his best would beat Federer at his on any faster court, not just grass (so obviously grass that much moreso).

Click to expand...

Yeah, John McEnroe, who considers Nadal to be the best volleyer in the game. Yeah, his opinions have proven to be so credible.

Both have 7 Wimbledons and there are no other grass tournament that matters these days besides Wimbledon, so it is really completely up to personal opinion who is better. Federer hasnt surpassed Sampras on grass unless he wins an 8th. One could say Sampras carried his dominance on grass until he was 29 (he won his 4th Wimbledon in a row and 7th in 8 years 1 month shy of his 29th birthday) while Federer couldnt carry his that far.

Click to expand...

Roger Federer is an attacking player like Pete. Pete had the luxury of playing on fast grass at Wimbledon while Roger plays on a slowed down grass which helps retrievers more. If Pete won four Wimbledons in a row then Roger got five in a row. Roger also has played more finals. Roger didn't have QF exit during his prime like Pete had in 1996. Roger's first QF exit was when he was almost 29

Roger Federer is an attacking player like Pete. Pete had the luxury of playing on fast grass at Wimbledon while Roger plays on a slowed down grass which helps retrievers more. If Pete won four Wimbledons in a row then Roger got five in a row. Roger also has played more finals. Roger didn't have QF exit during his prime like Pete had in 1996. Roger's first QF exit was when he was almost 29

Both have 7 Wimbledons and there are no other grass tournament that matters these days besides Wimbledon, so it is really completely up to personal opinion who is better. Federer hasnt surpassed Sampras on grass unless he wins an 8th. One could say Sampras carried his dominance on grass until he was 29 (he won his 4th Wimbledon in a row and 7th in 8 years 1 month shy of his 29th birthday) while Federer couldnt carry his that far.

Click to expand...

It is a very close race no doubt about it, but I have to put Federer slightly ahead of Sampras because at Wimbledon Federer's stats are slightly better (W-L ratio, winning percentage, etc.) You can say what you want but Federer was the guy who was able to win Wimbledon past age 30, Sampras did not. As I said, Federer is slightly ahead of Sampras in the stats there but the reality is, if both were in their primes it would be a tight race I am sure.

Winning a Davis Cup adds to your GOATness. Why you knocking the DC? See this is what the neutral fans cringe about when he/shes a comment such as this. Once upon a time, the top players played DC and took it very seriously, sometimes at the expense of their slam/tournament win tally. These days, winning slams seems to be the only measure of GOATness for some around here. Yet a former champion who, at the expense of his personal career, had to go into hostile territory, play on a foreign surface in front of a hostile crowd, and still hauled his team/country over the line doesn't count for much because it's 'only' DC. What a shallow point of view to have. Just pathetic. Refer to the "Why GOAT does not exist" thread.

Even Richard Krajicek could take down Sampras at his peak. Federer 2004 > 2006 would beat peak Pete 19 times out of 20.

Click to expand...

RK got Pete once. Had they met again at W, Pete would have tore him a new one. Revenge is a very powerful motivator.

In Pete's glory years at W, he lost to one player. RF has lost to more than one player at W in his glory years at W. So to suggest that RF would beat Sampras 19 times out of 20 is absurd. And anyway, RF would want to hope that Sampras does not get a few wins against Federer. Because we all know what happens to Fed's mind when someone beats him a few times don't we? Unlike Sampras, the aggressor who will come at you (eg getting RK back at the USO in 2000) Fed becomes a bit of a basket case. Sorry, not trolling, I have not made this up, just telling it as it is. It's actually happened.

I reiterate, Sampras at his peak in straight sets against Fed at his peak.
on 90s W CC.

Winning a Davis Cup adds to your GOATness. Why you knocking the DC? See this is what the neutral fans cringe about when he/shes a comment such as this. Once upon a time, the top players played DC and took it very seriously, sometimes at the expense of their slam/tournament win tally. These days, winning slams seems to be the only measure of GOATness for some around here. Yet a former champion who, at the expense of his personal career, had to go into hostile territory, play on a foreign surface in front of a hostile crowd, and still hauled his team/country over the line doesn't count for much because it's 'only' DC. What a shallow point of view to have. Just pathetic. Refer to the "Why GOAT does not exist" thread.

Click to expand...

hahahahahah davis cup is about a team not one player..why not focus on sampras being wasted on his beloved wimbledon centre ct by federer, or losing to the mighty george bastl the next year..or not even winning the french open or being in the final EVER..even nadal managed to win his weakest majors the aust/u s open.

hahahahahah davis cup is about a team not one player..why not focus on sampras being wasted on his beloved wimbledon centre ct by federer, or losing to the mighty george bastl the next year..or not even winning the french open or being in the final EVER..even nadal managed to win his weakest majors the aust/u s open.

Click to expand...

DC is about a team event? Oh really? You don't say. My point is, once upon a time it was taken very seriously by the players because the slams weren't the only thing in life. Ask McEnroe what he thought of DC. But these days, it's a distant 4th to slams, WTF/Olympic Gold and the 1,000s. This is why slams cannot be the only measure of greatness. In 1986, Pat Cash beat Stefan Edberg at Kooyong to help Australia win the DC. The DC final was played before the AO final which was also at Kooyong. They then met in the AO final about 3 weeks later and Edberg turned the tables. My point is, if this happened today, someone like Federer would not give anything away in the DC final because he doesn't want to jeopardise his precious slam count. Back in 1986, during the DC final, the last thing on Cash's mind was the AO, which was only a week away. He was giving it his all to win the DC for his country, at the expense of his own aspirations to win the AO. He basically won the DC off his own racquet too. But a team event right, shouldn't count towards greatness you think. You're a jonny come lately mate. I bet you also think that Apple Inc invented the first ever phone or that McDonalds invented the first ever burger.

DC is about a team event? Oh really? You don't say. My point is, once upon a time it was taken very seriously by the players because the slams weren't the only thing in life. Ask McEnroe what he thought of DC. But these days, it's a distant 4th to slams, WTF/Olympic Gold and the 1,000s. This is why slams cannot be the only measure of greatness. In 1986, Pat Cash beat Stefan Edberg at Kooyong to help Australia win the DC. The DC final was played before the AO final which was also at Kooyong. They then met in the AO final about 3 weeks later and Edberg turned the tables. My point is, if this happened today, someone like Federer would not give anything away in the DC final because he doesn't want to jeopardise his precious slam count. Back in 1986, during the DC final, the last thing on Cash's mind was the AO, which was only a week away. He was giving it his all to win the DC for his country, at the expense of his own aspirations to win the AO. He basically won the DC off his own racquet too. But a team event right, shouldn't count towards greatness you think. You're a jonny come lately mate. I bet you also think that Apple Inc invented the first ever phone or that McDonalds invented the first ever burger.

Click to expand...

no he didnt "basically win the dc off his own racquet too"..stop hyperventilating and making things up..

i do not dine at mcdonalds so im not interested...and apple inc were not around in 1876 so its a safe bet to say they didnt invent the 'first ever phone'..theres no need to be bitter about sampras being pushed out by federer..theres more to tennis than slams 'mate', just ask sampras..oh no he said "its all about the slams" didnt he, oh well..diddums, ok then..you big johnny-come-lately..'mate'.

however, congrats to pat cash for winning the davis cup all on his own...(basically)

He also came close to beating Fed in 2007 as well while being injured.. Nadal could very well be 2-1 vs. Fed on grass right now (Probably even better then that if Fed had to deal with Nadal in 2009 and 2010 as well)

Click to expand...

If you really want to go there, you can't possibly imagine that Sampras should ever get one single measly vote vs Federer on grass ability, as he lost 100% of the matches they played against each other, and on grass, at his favorite venue where he was a four-time defending champion, no less.

So, Sampras definitely out of grass-court-GOATness contention as Federer owns him body and soul on that surface. Agreed?